say something about ... yourself!

[Dead Winter]

Well I still like Nirvana...but THEY weren't the ones who first cut through the cheesy hair metal, and I'm pretty sick of people saying they were groundbreaking because they simply jumped on the bandwagon that was already established. Soundgarden, The Melvins, Mother Love Bone, and a whole slew of others were doing it better than Nirvana before there WAS Nirvana. Nirvana became so hugely famous because they were more tolerable with radio stations. They wrote catchy, poppy tunes with a lot of angst that resonated with the masses because the masses didn't even know who the other Seattle bands were at the time. They became famous because they wrote catchy, simple songs that were easy to digest...that's it.

They didn't blow the doors wide open on the Seattle grunge scene, they didn't do anything better than anyone else, they weren't extremely prolific and amazing...they just wrote some cool songs and it just snowballed because of heavy radio play and MTV. Nevermind was a great album, but most everything before and after that album sucked.

Nirvana was blown way out of proportion while much better bands were left out to dry. Musicianship-wise, Dave Grohl is an excellent drummer and Krist Novaselic is an average at best bassist...I've seen him play and met him...he's OK and that's about it. Kurt was no great musician but he had a certain type of voice and guitar style that matched...they sounded horrible but together worked for some reason.

And then they blew up and people lost their shit over a few decent pop songs, hailing them as the next Rolling Stones, Beatles, Ramones, etc., and people to this day are still exaggerating about that band. I just don't see it.

 

[Malergion]

Shut up DW! Cobain had long hair and he was cute. That makes him amazing!!!!! Such clear lyrics. Such a refined message....ah hell, I don't understand it...such a noble soul!

 

[Brooks]

Well, I agree that it snowballed out of proportion, and Kurt wasn't the demigod that the media made him out to be.

But he had a solution for that.

 

[Malergion]

Lawyers.

 

[guitarguru777]

Not lawyers... a shotgun

Unfortunately in the fray that was glam vs alternative all the good thrash and metal band got lumped in with the "hair metal". Band like Testament and Slayer lost their MTV appeal and lost out on some major opportunities cause of it.

Plain and simple Grunge didn't kill metal. Hair bands killed metal, at least as far as "the media" and popular culture was concerned.

 

[Malergion]

Not lawyers... a shotgun

Yes. Levity.

As far as the death of metal, it doesn't seem very dead to me. It's even regained some popularity. Sure it was on the back burner for a while, but come on.

 

[Det Som Engang Var]

I pretty much agree with Dead Winter on Nirvana.

 

[Brooks]

Oh, I do too.

I just think that they get more shit than they deserve. It's not like they're the 90's Jonas Brothers (death to the Jonas Brothers) or Miley Cyrus (death to Miley Cyrus) or Justin Beiber (death to Justin Beiber).

They were a band. That got really big. That's all.

Not a corporate manufactured sugar pop outfit. They wrote damn fine songs, kicked ass live, and were rewarded for it--albiet maybe a little too much.


And metal isn't dead, and never will be, as long as jamokes like guru are around!

 

[Det Som Engang Var]

I meant it in that way. They get way more shit than they deserve. Cobain was a great songwriter, and songwriting beats musicianship every time.

And come on, guitarist. Don't you remember the days you started off learning Cobain's stuff? Those were the days...I think SMTS was the first solo I ever learned. I was so damn proud of myself.

 

[Shpongled]

The two best things about Nirvana imo are Dave Grohl and the band name. If Nirvana existed solely to spawn Dave Grohl into mainstream music, then their existence is justified imo.

However, life is too short for mediocre music and Nirvana is barely that, so..... yeah. I don't care about their message or their songwriting or their playing, or their "reviving" of anything or any other that other horseshit. Everything they did was half-assed and previously and continuously done better by other bands.

 

[Det Som Engang Var]

Foo Fighters is definitely better.

Everlong is my favorite rock song.

 

[Anvil]

Yeeaaa, not a fan of Nirvana. They have a song here or there that I don't mind, but otherwise, they were just a crappy band that was WAY over rated.

 

[Dead Winter]

Well, I agree that it snowballed out of proportion, and Kurt wasn't the demigod that the media made him out to be.

But he had a solution for that.

good one

 

[Dead Winter]

Oh, I do too.

I just think that they get more shit than they deserve. It's not like they're the 90's Jonas Brothers (death to the Jonas Brothers) or Miley Cyrus (death to Miley Cyrus) or Justin Beiber (death to Justin Beiber).

They were a band. That got really big. That's all.

Not a corporate manufactured sugar pop outfit. They wrote damn fine songs, kicked ass live, and were rewarded for it--albiet maybe a little too much.


And metal isn't dead, and never will be, as long as jamokes like guru are around!

Yeah, Nirvana got way more shit than they deserved, but that's what happens when you're a band who changes the face of music forever.

Honestly, I think the 90's was the greatest decade in the past 30 years. While there certainly were several overrated bands who got uber famous, it gave music the kick in the ass it needed. It brought "music" back into making music...people were once again making music because they loved to make music, not because they wanted to become famous...for the most part, at least.

 

[WhiteBeastofWotan]

pretty much moved. love the new pad, but shit its dusty and moldy in here. gonna drive me allergies crazy

 

[guitarguru777]

Yeah, Nirvana got way more shit than they deserved, but that's what happens when you're a band who changes the face of music forever.

Honestly, I think the 90's was the greatest decade in the past 30 years. While there certainly were several overrated bands who got uber famous, it gave music the kick in the ass it needed. It brought "music" back into making music...people were once again making music because they loved to make music, not because they wanted to become famous...for the most part, at least.

originality was the key. There was some really amazing bands to come out of the 90s. AIC, Soundgarden, Mother Love Bone, Smashing Pumpkins, Janes Addiction all had a unique sound that was just addictive.

The musician ship was there as well but the songwriting was the key. It was a very exciting time for music. Guys like Dave Abruzze and Matt Cameron were just monstrous behind the drum kit. Vedder, Cornell and Staley all had amazing displays of vocal prowess. Corgan, Thayill, and Cantrell wrote the most amazing music!

The 90s were definitely an amazing time in music!

 

[Dead Winter]

Yep. I mean, the 80's had a bunch of great bands as well but the songwriting wasn't there in the mainstream. Metallica and Megadeth were giants but relatively unknown in the mid to late 80's.

 

[Dreadful]

Does anyone else think that Nirvana doesn't sound like Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Smashing Pumpkins, Mother Love Bone, Janes Addiction etc? Am I alone? That whole "Alice in Chains, The Melvins, Pearl Jam were playing the sound better and before Nirvana" is total rat shit. Nirvana was way more energetic, less 'sludgy' and definitely had less metal undertones and more alternative rock than those bands. If you play Pearl Jam and Nirvana every other song, back to back...it's clear as daylight that the two have little in common other than drop D tuning, same city, simplicity, emotional singing.

 

[Super Mahrio]

Well I still like Nirvana...but THEY weren't the ones who first cut through the cheesy hair metal, and I'm pretty sick of people saying they were groundbreaking because they simply jumped on the bandwagon that was already established. Soundgarden, The Melvins, Mother Love Bone, and a whole slew of others were doing it better than Nirvana before there WAS Nirvana. Nirvana became so hugely famous because they were more tolerable with radio stations. They wrote catchy, poppy tunes with a lot of angst that resonated with the masses because the masses didn't even know who the other Seattle bands were at the time. They became famous because they wrote catchy, simple songs that were easy to digest...that's it.

They didn't blow the doors wide open on the Seattle grunge scene, they didn't do anything better than anyone else, they weren't extremely prolific and amazing...they just wrote some cool songs and it just snowballed because of heavy radio play and MTV. Nevermind was a great album, but most everything before and after that album sucked.

Nirvana was blown way out of proportion while much better bands were left out to dry. Musicianship-wise, Dave Grohl is an excellent drummer and Krist Novaselic is an average at best bassist...I've seen him play and met him...he's OK and that's about it. Kurt was no great musician but he had a certain type of voice and guitar style that matched...they sounded horrible but together worked for some reason.

And then they blew up and people lost their shit over a few decent pop songs, hailing them as the next Rolling Stones, Beatles, Ramones, etc., and people to this day are still exaggerating about that band. I just don't see it.

I actually agree with this. Nirvana did quite literally come out of left field in those days. Their sound was very messy. I think thats why people latched on to them so strongly, they really wanted something that sounded less polished. People were tired of cheesy hair metal and mass produced pop bands. Nirvana wasnt a great band musically, but they were what people wanted or felt they needed to hear. Thats basically why they were so popular.

Cobain knew how to write stuff that was filled with hooks and that could get into your head and stay there. That was all. Soundgarden, AIC, and even Pearl Jam were actually superior in musical talent.

 

[Brooks]

Does anyone else think that Nirvana doesn't sound like Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Smashing Pumpkins, Mother Love Bone, Janes Addiction etc? Am I alone? That whole "Alice in Chains, The Melvins, Pearl Jam were playing the sound better and before Nirvana" is total rat shit. Nirvana was way more energetic, less 'sludgy' and definitely had less metal undertones and more alternative rock than those bands. If you play Pearl Jam and Nirvana every other song, back to back...it's clear as daylight that the two have little in common other than drop D tuning, same city, simplicity, emotional singing.

Totally.

One of the main reasons Nirvana is getting shit on this board (including just about every other band that gets shit on this board) is that this is a forum of metal heads.

Nirvana was not rooted in metal, at least not nearly as much as Soundgarden and Alice In Chains (both essentially metal bands clad in flannel), Melvins, Earth, Jane's etc.. Bands which get infinitely more respect round here.

Face it, we're metal heads, by definition close-minded fucks.